[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f584ea71-694f-3d3a-7228-9232531e3918@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 08:57:02 +0100
From: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
To: Timur Tabi <timur@...nel.org>
Cc: Qiang Zhao <qiang.zhao@....com>, Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Scott Wood <oss@...error.net>, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 32/47] serial: ucc_uart: use of_property_read_u32() in
ucc_uart_probe()
On 15/11/2019 05.25, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 7:03 AM Rasmus Villemoes
> <linux@...musvillemoes.dk> wrote:
>>
>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "cell-index", &val) &&
>> + of_property_read_u32(np, "device-id", &val)) {
>
> I know that this is technically correct, but it's obfuscated IMHO.
> 'val' is set correctly only when of_property_read_u32(...) is "false",
> which is doubly-weird because of_property_read_u32(...) doesn't
> actually return a boolean.
>
> I would rather you break this into two if-statements like the original code.
>
Sure, I can do that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists